SOL-623-17-000004_-_Amendment_1.docx

SOL-623-17-000004 - Amendment #1

1. The solicitation submission due date is extended one week from September 7th, 2017. The new submission due date is now September 15th, 2017 at 8am Nairobi time.

a. Page 1, Letter to Potential Offerors, “Closing Date and Time for Submission of Proposals: September 7, 2017 at 4:00PM Nairobi Time” is replaced it its entirety by:

“Closing Date and Time for Submission of Proposals: September 15, 2017 at 8:00AM Nairobi Time”

b. L.5 SUBMISSION/DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS (b) is replaced in its entirety by:

“(b) Proposal Due Date and Time - As noted on the cover page of this solicitation, proposals are due September 15, 2017 at 8:00AM Nairobi Time.”

2. B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED PRICE, BASE FEE, AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT, CLIN 1 – Firm Fixed Price (FFP) (b) is deleted from the solicitation.

3. B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED PRICE, BASE FEE, AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT, CLIN 2 – Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) (b) is changed in its entirety to:

a. “Within the estimated cost plus fixed fee amount specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by the Contractor (and payment of fee, if any) for performance hereunder is $TBD. The Contractor shall not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount in accordance with the Limitation of Funds Clause, FAR 52.232.22.”

4. B.4 BUDGET, CLIN 0003 table and ATTACHMENT J.1: BUDGET TEMPLATE, CLIN 0003 table, are changed in its entirety to:

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)

CLIN 0003:

(Total of CLIN 0003: 3a to 3d)

5. D.3. BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKING PLAN, Anticipated Elements of Marking Plan, provision is changed in its entirety to:

a. “This study/report/Web site (specify) is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this (specify) are the sole responsibility of (name of organization) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.”

6. L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL is amended by adding:

a. “Annex 5: Draft Work Plan” after “Annex 4: Past Performance Matrix”

7. L.6. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL is amended by adding:

a. “ also must include detailed position descriptions” after “Resumes with references for proposed candidates”

8. L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL is amended by replacing “Annex 1: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan Matrix (not to exceed 5 pages)” with:

a. “Annex 1: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan Matrix (not to exceed 7 pages)”

9. B.2 CONTRACT TYPE, the first sentence is replaced in its entirety by:

a. “This is a hybrid contract: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursement (Cost Plus Fixed Fee - CPFF) completion type contract.”

10. L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL is amended by adding “Acronym List” under items not subject to page limitations.

11. M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

4. “INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY” has been changed to “INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY”

12. This section on INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY has been added to the solicitation:

“L.6, 6. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY

The offeror must demonstrate its institutional capability by providing the following:

(i) Discussion of the experience of the Offeror and any proposed subcontractors to carry out the work described in Section C.

(ii) Discussion of the offeror’s ability to manage complex projects and to perform effectively working with different client and interest groups toward shared and complementary objectives.

(iii) Evidence of the offeror's ability to assemble technical assistance teams, including subcontractors, place them in the field in a timely manner, and provide them with all necessary support. Demonstrate the ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects involving collaborative efforts drawing upon the full range of available skills and experience available.”

13. This section on PAST PERFORMANCE has been added to the solicitation:

“L.6, 7. PAST EXPERIENCE & PERFORMANCE

Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

· Relevance of the offeror’s experience. The degree of relevance of past activities on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance to this activity. Experience over the last five years will be acceptable for the purposes of this evaluation. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel.

· Offeror must propose no less than four relevant past performance activities, performed by the prime offeror and/or major subcontractor(s). Two of the no less than four past performance activities can be from subcontractors. But, two of the past performance activities must be from the prime offeror. At least two past performance activities must be those implemented by the prime contractor.

· The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the proposal and the information that the government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

Note:

· Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. USAID may use performance information obtained from other than the source identified by the Offeror/subcontractor. USAID will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the references provided in Section L of this RFP and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an Offeror’s performance.

· Adverse past performance information to which the Offeror previously has not had an opportunity to respond will be addressed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in FAR 15.3.

· USAID will initially determine the relevance of similar performance information as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

· The contractor performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with the elements below:

(a) Quality of product or services, including consistency in meeting goals and targets.

(b) Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting.

(c) Schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

(d) Regulatory Compliance. For example:

· Has the contractor complied with all contract clause requirements?

· Has the contractor complied with the reporting requirements of the contract?

· Has the contractor complied with the quality assurance surveillance plan?

· Has the contractor complied with specifications or other contractual requirements

· In the contract such as FAPIIS reporting, CAS reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, and standard and unique contract requirements specific to that contract?

(e) Management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems with clients where identified.

(f) For prime Offerors who are not small business concerns as subcontractors, including efforts in achieving small business participation goals:

· An Offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

i. The Offeror lacks relevant performance history,

ii. Information on performance is not available, or

iii. The Offeror is a member of a class of Offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub factor.

When this occurs, an Offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a “neutral” rating. For example, a small business prime Offeror will not be evaluated on its performance in using small business concerns. If this sub factor is worth a possible 10 points out of a total possible point value of 100 for the technical proposal, then the small business prime Offeror’s technical proposal will have a maximum possible points, its total technical score for evaluation against the other Offerors would be 88.89 (i.e., 80/90). USAID understands that there may be minor arithmetic differences in percentage terms as a result; however, it considers these differences to be minor and that they will not impact any best-value decision made under this solicitation.

An exception to this “neutral” rating provision is when a non-small businesses prime has no history of subcontracting with small business concerns.

Prior to assigning a “neutral” past performance rating, the contracting officer may take into account a broad range of information related to an Offeror’s performance.”

14. This section discussing Small Business Subcontracting Plans has been added to the solicitation:

“L.6, 8; SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

In accordance with FAR Part 19.702, the contracting officer will require the apparently successful offeror to submit a small business subcontracting plan. If the apparently successful offeror fails to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit prescribed by the contracting officer, the offeror will be ineligible for award.”

15. L.7 COST PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices (1) is replaced in its entirety by:

a. “(1) Summary Budget - The Offeror must submit a summary budget for the five (5) years of performance along with a detailed cost plan broken down by CLIN and then by element. The summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget categories for each of the contract years separately as synopsized under Attachment J.1 and then offer the program total for the entire contract, item for item in the last column of the spreadsheet. There should be no hidden or password protected cells or sheets.”

16. B.7 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 2 ONLY) is amended and now begins with:

a. “B.7 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 2 and CLIN 3)

CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 are Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs”

17. Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices is amended by adding the following to the end of (3) Detailed Budget:

a. “The Attachment J1. Budget Template ‘Budget Notes’ column should succinctly clarify and identify items of note. These items should be described in greater detail in the Budget Narrative.”

18. M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA, 1. Technical Approach (30 points), is amended as follows:

a. “1. Technical Approach (30 points) The degree to which the proposed implementation approach for each of the services detailed in Section C is technically and managerially sound, aligned with HICD principles, and likely to produce sustainable impact and meet the objectives of the project as described in this solicitation. The implementation plan must be realistic, directly relevant to the achievement of results and maximize efficient use of resources. For evaluation scoring, the approaches will be weighed in order of priority as follows:

19. L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, 1. Technical Proposal, 2. Technical Approach (included in the Technical Proposal 25-page limit), is replaced in its entirety by:

a. “2. Technical Approach (included in the Technical Proposal 25-page limit)

The Offeror must describe the overarching approach and methodology for this activity such that reviewers can understand how the Offeror will successfully manage and implement the Statement of Work in accordance with HICD principles. The Offeror must present a realistic and effective approach for obtaining and maintaining RIGO buy-in for the full range of RIGO System Strengthening activities, including how the Offeror will facilitate each RIGO Working Group in reaching agreement on coordinating donor assistance for organizational strengthening, completing any required additional assessments, developing and implementing the performance solution plan including prioritizing activities with the limited resources available, and developing the RIGO PMES.

The Offeror must also describe its proposed monitoring and evaluation system for the RIGO System Strengthening activity. While the final results framework will be developed as part of Phase 3: RIGO Performance Solutions and Implementation Plan, the Offeror should describe the proposed approach for measuring results of RIGO System Strengthening activities, including a description of how relevant benchmark or baseline data will be collected and a list of illustrative indicators and milestones.

The Offeror must describe a rapid mobilization plan that will realistically meet the required deadlines. The Offeror must describe how it will utilize local providers. The Offeror must demonstrate knowledge of the operating environment, constraining factors, and a thorough understanding of the tasks. It must also describe the approach for achieving the results set out in Section C, as well as any additional results, if any, that the Offeror proposes to achieve above and beyond the minimum requirements.

This section should include a detailed description of how the offeror proposes to utilize different types of approaches to address identified RIGO institutional capacity gaps in the following priority areas:

● Performance management, including monitoring and evaluation;

● Financial management;

● Strategic planning;

● Organizational governance;

● Donor coordination of capacity development assistance.

The proposal must indicate how the offeror will ensure an ability to quickly mobilize the requisite capacity to deliver on each task. The proposed methodology should reflect the offeror’s experience with effective approaches to organizational capacity development that are suitable to complex, quasi-governmental, RIGOs.

The proposal must also indicate how the approach will ensure that results are sustainable, beyond the project’s life and cognizant of the frequent staff turnover that RIGO’s may experience. USAID expects that the offeror will propose a comprehensive approach, embracing a wide range of possible capacity building methodologies that are context-appropriate and best meet the needs of each RIGO to improve its systems and strengthen its human and institutional capacity.”

20. All other terms and conditions remain the same.